Ten elected members of the Uttarakhand Bar Council have approached the Supreme Court challenging a July 2026 resolution and circular issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) prescribing the manner in which the Supreme Court’s direction for 30 per cent reservation for women in State Bar Councils is to be implemented.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana on Tuesday issued notice to the Bar Council of India and the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, seeking their response to the challenge.
The petition, Kuldeep Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., contends that the BCI has acted beyond its statutory powers by proposing to increase the number of elected members in State Bar Councils to achieve the mandated level of women’s representation.
The controversy stems from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India & Ors., which directed that women should constitute 30 per cent of the membership of State Bar Councils. In an attempt to implement the ruling, the BCI passed a resolution on July 19 and subsequently issued a circular outlining the mechanism for achieving the quota.
Under the Advocates Act, 1961, the elected strength of State Bar Councils is fixed at 15, 20 or 25 members, depending on the size of the electorate. The BCI resolution prescribed that councils with 25 elected members should have seven women members, those with 20 members should have six women, and councils with 15 members should have four women representatives.
The BCI further proposed that if the requisite number of women candidates were not elected within the statutory strength of a council, additional elected seats would be created to bridge the shortfall. For instance, where no woman was elected in a 25-member council, seven additional seats could be added, increasing the council’s strength to 32. If some women were elected, only the remaining deficit would be filled through elections to the newly created seats.
The petitioners have challenged this mechanism, arguing that the BCI has effectively altered the composition of State Bar Councils without any statutory amendment or express direction from the Supreme Court. According to them, the top court had envisaged implementation of the 30 per cent quota through a combination of 20 per cent elected seats and 10 per cent co-opted members, and not by expanding the size of the councils.
“The Respondent No. 2 (BCI) has gravely misconstrued the limited liberty granted by this Hon’ble Court by unilaterally introducing seat enhancement through the impugned resolution, without seeking any specific enabling direction from this Court,” the plea states.
The petition further argues that any change in the statutory composition of State Bar Councils can only be come to effect through an amendment to the Advocates Act by Parliament. In the absence of such legislative backing, the BCI’s decision amounts to an impermissible exercise of legislative power.
Seeking to quash the July 2026 circular and resolution, the petitioners have also urged the Supreme Court to restrain the BCI from taking any steps that would alter the results of the Uttarakhand Bar Council elections held in February this year. They have additionally sought a declaration that the strength of the Uttarakhand Bar Council cannot be increased beyond its statutory limit of 25 elected members unless authorised by Parliament or through a specific order of the Supreme Court.
The post Supreme Court seeks BCI response on plea challenging seat expansion formula for implementing women quota in State Bar Councils appeared first on India Legal.